Text Size

-

+

reset

There, Romney almost word-for-word details the same view about climate science that he offered in New Hampshire. He also broaches a number of the hot-button climate policy issues. "I do not support radical feel-good politics like a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade mandate," he wrote.

On oil and carbon taxes, Romney called them a “regressive form of taxation that would penalize those least able to shoulder the burden. It’s a nonstarter.”

Holmstead, an industry lawyer at Bracewell & Giuliani, said he doesn't expect Romney to break from the GOP orthodoxy on the climate policy front.

"I've not seen anything to suggest he wants to sign off on an aggressive carbon tax, or even an EPA regulatory approach," he said. "Just because you say it looks like human activity may well be having an impact on the climate, it doesn't mean we run off and do something that doesn't make any sense. And that's certainly the impression I have from listening to him."

Romney's views on climate change — accepting the science but casting doubt on the solutions — sounds to some like smart politics.

"As far as where tea partiers are, I'm not sure these voters are with Romney anyway," said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of The Cook Political Report. "I'm not sure he's got a lot to lose."

Ultimately, Duffy said Romney's views could appeal to Democrats and independents in the general election — should he survive the GOP primaries.

Jim DiPeso, vice president for communications and policy at Republicans for Environmental Protection, said Romney's remarks on climate science are a "welcome development" at a time when tea party conservatives and climate skeptics have pushed GOP lawmakers to abandon past pro-environmental positions.

"In some sense, if a candidate can return to where Bush was toward the end of his presidency, you can almost read that as progress given what's happened over the last couple of years," DiPeso said.

Several Republicans say they are at a loss to define the winning strategy on climate change given their party's every-changing political landscape.

"It's very tricky," said Steve Hayward, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "A lot of the Republican base is deep into skepticism. The Democratic base is deep into climate orthodoxy. A lot of people in the middle don't know what they think or don't much care. I think it's tough to thread the needle in the middle anymore on either side."

In 2008, McCain took considerable heat from his GOP rivals when he took his pro cap-and-trade stance. At the time, he credited his view in part to questions he faced while on the campaign trail in 2000 against Bush, when a man dressed in a superhero costume and calling himself Captain Climate followed McCain around the state asking about the issue.

"I don't know, to tell you the truth, what their priorities are this time," McCain said Tuesday when asked about climate change in New Hampshire. "But I think again, jobs and the economy are the big issue there. But there is a strong environmental movement in New Hampshire. I'm not sure how what the best way to approach the issue is."

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 5:34 a.m. on June 9, 2011.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misquoted Romney as saying that it's important "for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants, of greenhouse gases, that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you're seeing." More details are available here.

This is one of the issues that will divide Republicans and be hotly debated. On one side are the anti-science flat-earth Republicans who believe their wishful opinions are more sound than scientific findings; on the other side are the Republican realists who don't know what to do about global warming and don't want to have to offer solutions but are not going to risk losing the votes of all educated persons. I am very happy there are at least two Republican presidential candidates in the running who will stand up against the head-in-the-sand deniers of global warming. Talk about hot, this should be one hot debate.

Until now, Romney has had a relatively easy time in dealing with the politics of climate change, in no small part because conservatives have been busy pummeling his record in Massachusetts on health care.

lol..........yeah the same conservatives that were for the "mandates" in 2008.................which is a Conservative concept until Obama threw them in his unconstitutional Federal Obamacare bill............

Then these SAME so-called Conservatives Flip Flopped away from the conservative concept of "mandates" leaving Romney (who is suppose to be the flip flopper lol) standing on his principles and decisions.....

ah.........those boggyman mandates..........btw the States have lots of mandates....

Mandates like you must send your children to school...................isn't that terrible ?

Mandates that say if you drive a car you better have car insurance, OMG !

And now in Massachusetts mandates that say if your employer offers you health insurance where they pay 75% of the preminums and the employee has to pay the other 25% ..............then you better damn sign up for it instead of showing up at the ER for free health care on the taxpayers dime........

I support State mandate that make residents responsible...................... that's a Conservative concept and these so-called conservative groups need to start warming up to that concept.......

The man listened to the scientists that all pretty much agree that human emissions have upset the energy balance of the planet making it warmer, and thus causing climate to change. Is going after the votes of the whack-jobs that don't consider this possible despite all the evidences to the contrary the smartest thing to do? Those voters are the conspiracy theorists that would rather think that most scientists are engaged in a government plot.. These are the birthers, tea party supporters, followers of folks like Palin and Bachmann (who is distancing herself from Palin as quickly as possible), and folks who also don't believe that human beings are part of evolution. Isn't it smarter to embrace science and court the majority of intelligent voters than the extremist-wing of the republican party?

The problem with this whole Global Warming thing is that it became political when nutty Al Gore took it over.......

Immediately the Right jerk away and ever since this issue has become politcal.

Everyone in America wants to make sure that we care for our planet, Earth, the best way we can.

But Romney isn't for throwing trillions of dollars that we don't have at it. And Romney's not for hurting businesses, poor people, and the American working class by supporting the extreme Cap N Trade bill that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid generated.

Romney is right we need to be aware of the warming of the planet and take commonsense "smart" moves to address it.

The answer to what global climate change is real is not to sabotage our economy in an effort to sate the anger of the weather gods but to use resources to help mankind adapt to changes as required by the climate. I welcome Romney's support for the eventual Republican nominee but his failure to perceive the ulterior motives of the Global Warming crowd is a disqualifier as far as I'm concerned. We have an opportunity to get a real conservative into the White House this time around and must not squander the chance by putting up another RINO whose positions are 180 degrees out of sync with the base.

The man listened to the scientists that all pretty much agree that human emissions have upset the energy balance of the planet making it warmer, and thus causing climate to change. Is going after the votes of the whack-jobs that don't consider this possible despite all the evidences to the contrary the smartest thing to do?

Since a large percentage of the voters in GOP primaries are flat earther whack jobs, taking anything approaching a pro-science position is risky for Romney. It's a Catch 22 for the Republican Party at large. To win the GOP primary it helps to be a wackaloon. But wackaloons aren't very good at governing. Romney's a politically middling, competent politician. That type of person won't do well with the Birthers, flat earthers, and other assorted shriekers.

Romney is right we need to be aware of the warming of the planet and take commonsense "smart" moves to address it.

We need to stop "politicizing" these important issues.......

One has to sympathize with Romney for being in the position of having to apologize for trying to get medical care for people and taking care of the environment. Both are considered cardinal sins in the new far-Right orthodoxy, as they are considered too intrusive on the "freedom" of the rich to get richer.

The fact is that, in a more reasonable time, both proposals (i.e. "Romneycare" "cap and trade") wold be considered market based solutions to real and pressing problems.

One could easily make the argument that both are "conservative" positions.

What passes for conservativism today, however, is really just a form of radical capitalism that seeks to shift economic and political power to multinational corporations and away from governments. Somehow, in this New World Order, it is considered fairer and more democratic for such power to be in the hands of CEOs and boards of directors than in the hands of "We the People".

So much for Mr. Romney. The last socialist, Government control of everything Republican was a guy named George Bush any one remember him? The question is are conservative's and libertarians within the party stong enough to defeat the old school, blue haired Republican establihments money that Romney represents? Conservatives are in a war to re establish a free ecconomy and a free country. In that war Mr Romney is a plant from the totalitarian side.

Looks like Europe is starting to realize Obama...................Undecided1's boy .............is no longer the favorite to win in November 2012, this from The Telegraph:

"There is also bad news for Barack Obama in the presidential race. As The Post reveals, he is now in “a dead heat” with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose campaign only just kicked off officially last week. Romney and Obama are now tied at 47 percent each, but in terms of registered voters, Romney leads Obama by a three point margin – 49 to 46. This is a highly significant development, for the first time giving a named Republican opponent a clear winning margin against Obama.

Last week I wrote that President Obama could be facing electoral disaster in November 2012 if the economic climate continues to deteriorate. Judging by this latest poll, that scenario is looking increasingly likely, with the most prominent Republican candidate now establishing a lead among registered voters."

Doug Brady's comment regarding taking a polarized position really exemplifies the problem most Americans have with our duly elected dunces in Congress. We don't see anybody under the capital dome who is working for the people, only to support their party's position, right or wrong. Is global warming a true event? Apparently so. Have humans contributed to the rapidity with which it is happening? Probably. For Romney to grasp the scientific concepts and take a stand has nothing to do with Republican or Democratic positions. It is an understanding of the impact this could have on the planet. When the polar ice and glaciers melt and New York City is under 30 feet of water, it really doesn't matter what your party's position is.

The 112th Congress should all be impeached for the way they have abandoned the American people. Can we sue Congress for fraud? They have promised us government by the people and for the people, but have reneged on that commitment. Sounds like fraud to me.